The Madras High Court on Tuesday was informed by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) that the Centre’s proposal of implementing 27 percent reservation for Other Backward Class (OBC) candidates in All India Quota (AIQ) seats of medical colleges in Tamil Nadu was unacceptable.

The petitioner said OBC candidates must be eligible for 50 percent reservation as envisaged under the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993 (1993 Act) and as previously affirmed by the Court vide its earlier decision dated July 27, 2020.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice P.D. Audikesavalu was adjudicating upon a contempt petition filed by the DMK over the delay in implementing OBC reservations for AIQ seats of medical colleges in the state for 2021-2022.

The Union had filed an additional affidavit appending a copy of a notice dated July 29, 2021 issued by the office of the Medical Counselling Committee of the Government of India, Directorate General of Health Services in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The overall reservation in 15 per cent under-graduate and 50 percent post-graduate All India Quota seats for medical colleges in the State has been indicated as follows:

Scheduled Castes – 15% (ii) Scheduled Tribes – 7.5% (iii) OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) as per the Central OBC list – 27% (iv) EWS – as per Central Government norms – 10% (v) PwD – 5% Horizontal Reservation as per NMC norms.

The petitioner in the contempt proceedings, which may also now be regarded as the State since the petitioner is the political party in power at the moment, contended that the judgment of the court of July 27, 2020, unequivocally accepted that the reservation in terms of the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993 would be applicable.

According to the petitioner, the All India Quota seats will be governed by the same ratio of reservation as indicated in the 1993 Act and such aspect of the matter is evident, inter alia, from paragraph 103 of the judgment of the court as accepted by the Supreme Court at paragraph 8 of the order dated October 26, 2020 passed on the State’s special leave petition arising out of this court’s order.

Indeed, paragraph 8 of the Supreme Court order noticed the scope of the special leave petition and observed that it was confined to whether a direction could be issued for implementation of the reservation pertaining to OBC candidates for admissions to undergraduate medical courses for 2020 itself.

However, it is the submission of the Union and the alleged contemnors that even the High Court judgment noticed that All India Quota seats were a separate class which would not be governed by the principle of domicile and, accordingly, a Committee was constituted by this court, which was approved by the Supreme Court, to ascertain the extent of reservation that would be desirable in the All India Quota seats.

“Prima facie, such submission militates against the purpose indicated in both the High Court order and the Supreme Court order for constituting the Committee. Both orders indicated that the Committee would work out the modalities of implementation of the reservation for OBC candidates to All India Quota seats in this State. If it is a question of implementation, the Committee was not tasked with the duty of ascertaining the extent of reservation or the inter se allocation thereof between groups,” the Court observed.

It is the Union’s further assertion that the scope of the present lis is to, in effect, execute the previous order of this court in line with the observations in the order of the Supreme Court, once it is seen that the order of this court was capable of a second interpretation and the alleged contemnors have bonafide been guided in such light, no contempt would have been committed.

Also Read: Madhya Pradesh HC extends ban on construction work in Khandari reservoir’s catchment area

“The object of any judicial exercise is ultimately to reach the benefit of the decision to those who are entitled thereto. It is true that contempt being a quasi-criminal jurisdiction, if an order is capable of two meanings and the conduct of the alleged contemnors seems to be guided by either, the fact that the other meaning appeals to the court cannot prompt the court to hold the persons in contempt. Equally, the contempt jurisdiction is an equitable mode of execution and this court cannot leave the issue unresolved merely by saying that no contempt has been committed.

A judgment has been rendered by the court and such judgment has to be interpreted to ensure that it is implemented, subject to any order of the Supreme Court in such regard. It does not appear that even the petitioner cares too much for the alleged contemnors being hauled up as long as the order of the court of July 27, 2020 is implemented in letter and spirit. Yet, there are several paragraphs in the judgment of this court which, despite accepting the Act of 1993 in this State to have a say in the matter, speak of a balance that is required to be struck and the Union’s stand now is that the balance has been struck by the Committee by indicating that one of the two options suggested could be adopted; and the Union has adopted the second option, strictly in terms of the recommendations of the relevant Committee,” the order reads.

At the request of the Union, the matter is adjourned and will now appear on August 9, the Court ordered.

The Supreme Court issued notice to the Tamil Nadu government while hearing a petition challenging the Tamil Nadu Special Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and in appointments under the State within Reservation for Most Backward Classes and Denotified Communities Act, 2021.

The Division Bench of Justices L. Nageswara Rao and S. Ravindra Bhat passed this order while hearing two petitions filed by S. Sandeep Kumar and  J. Muthukumar. The petition said that the impugned Act is unconstitutional and violative of Article 340 of the Constitution of India on the ground that reservation is permissible only to classes and not to a particular caste.

“…impugned Act has been rushed through in patent violation of all the legislative norms, Election Model Code of Conduct, Due process of law and in violation of constitutional rights of crores of citizens in Tamil Nadu just to win electoral gains from a particular caste,” the Petition said.

It is contended that the Act was passed when the Model Code of Conduct was in play only to meet the demand of Vanniya Kula Kshatriyas without the presence of any quantifiable data. Due to this, a Special Commission was appointed for the collection of quantifiable data on caste, communities, and tribes in Tamil Nadu with Justice A. Kulasekaran (Retd.) as the Chairman.

It is further submitted that the Committee is yet to submit any report and in undue haste, the Respondents announced that the Vanniya Kula Kshatriyas would be given 10.5% reservation.

Sriram P., counsel for the petitioner, stated that the petitioner, who is otherwise eligible to utilize 20%, has had her quota reduced to 10.5%, and the same is “not only arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory and in fragrant violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, but also it has failed to follow the procedure enunciated under the law…”.

The Plea states that the impugned Act is contrary to the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of seats in Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in Services under the State) Act, 1993, read with Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Private Educational Institutions) Act, 2006.

Also Read: Fake vaccine camps: Calcutta HC wants state govt to file detailed affidavit on progress of investigation

The Court directed Senior Advocate S. Nagamuthu, appearing for the petitioner, to approach the Madras High Court.

“Already petitions are pending before the High Court. Please go there. Why don’t you let them decide so that we have the benefit of the judgment? If we issue notice and keep it pending, we will anyway have the judgment of the High Court by then,” the Court said. Nagamuthu requested the Court to issue notice and tag the plea as the same had been done in two other petitions pertaining to the matter.

Therefore, the Court issued notice and tagged the plea with pending matters. The Court stated that the interpretation of 102nd Amendment involved a substantial question of law, and proceeded to refer the issue to a larger Bench. It is submitted that the grievance in the instant plea is in pari materia with the previous order of the Supreme Court.

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) represented by its Tamil Nadu State Secretary has filed a petition before the Supreme Court challenging denial of the statutory reservation for the Other Backward Classes (OBC) i.e. Backward Classes (BC) and Most Backward Classes (MBC) and Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in Undergraduate and Post Graduate Medical seats of the All India Quota under National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) in accordance with the state enactments. 

According to the petition, reservation for these seats under the All India Quota under NEET should be provided in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993 in Tamil Nadu and according to the state enactments in the other States. 

The petition states that the respondents hasn’t provided statutory reservations for OBC and anomaly in granting reservations to SC-ST students in admissions to the Under graduate and post graduate medical courses in all medical colleges in Tamil Nadu in the category of ‘state surrendered seats’ to the All India Quota in government and private medical colleges other than the Central Government institutions. 

Thr All India quota seats are contributed by States surrendering seats in the Government and Private medical and dental colleges as per the MCI regulations. According to the applicable MCI and DCI regulations 15% seats are surrendered by State Government and Private Colleges in undergraduate and diploma courses and 50% seats are surrendered to the All India Quota in post graduate courses both in private and government colleges.

The petition has stated that according to Regulation 9 of the Post Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 the reservation of seats in medical colleges or institutions for respective categories will be as per applicable laws prevailing in States or Union Territories where the medical colleges are physically situated.

The Tamil Nadu Act provides for 50% reservation to BCs and MBCs, 18% reservation to the Scheduled Caste and 1% to the Scheduled Tribe. However according to the petitioner still no OBC reservation is given in these States surrendered seats to the All India Quota in Government and Private medical institutions in the State.

The petitioners have also added that even the 27% statutory reservation for OBCs that is applied by the Central Government Institution is not followed for the state surrendered seats for the All India quota, thereby discriminating in implementing reservation of OBC in the State surrendered seats to All India Quota between Central government institutions and non-central government medical colleges. 

The petitioner seeks following directions to be issued;

1. To direct the respondents to follow and apply The Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993 granting 50% reservation for OBC (Backward Classes & Most Backward Classes) and 18% reservations for the Scheduled Caste and 1% reservation for Scheduled Tribe for filling up ‘State surrendered seats in All India Quota seats’ (other than in the Central institutions) in the State of Tamil Nadu in Undergraduate & Postgraduate Medical & Dental courses for the academic year 2020-21 and continue to do so for the coming academic years accordingly;
2. To direct the respondents to produce the records pertaining to the Results of NEET-PG, 2020 published on 09/05/2020 by the National Board of examinations relating to the filling up of the All India Quota.
3. To direct the respondents to set aside/ modify/ revise the NEET-PG 2020 published on 09/05/2020 by the National Board of examinations relating to the filling up of the State surrendered seats to All India Quota by providing reservation to OBCs, SC-STs as per The Tamil Nadu Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of appointments or posts in the Services under the State) Act, 1993.  

Read the petition here;

-India Legal Bureau